Re: Jaywill first (Faith's points later,but not her ad hominems against unbelievers

Phat writes:

...my point is that i cant retire on just promises of food

quote:Acts 4:34-35 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Every "argument" you've made has been soundly refuted. Leaving out things like, "and to keep back part of the price of the land," is not a valid argument. Legality is not a valid argument. Popularity is not a valid argument.

Re: Jaywill first (Faith's points later,but not her ad hominems against unbelievers

ringo writes:

So why is your system better than theirs?

Because we no longer have Apostles...people we can trust---to hand it over to. There is no comparable system today that is anywhere near as integral as the one described in Acts.

I can accept your argument that we are charged to give 100% in life. I can even agree with your argument that the specific group of believers mentioned in the Book Of Acts did, in fact, have a group consensus on giving 100%. What I am telling you and have told you before is that there is no group with trusted leaders with which I feel comfortable being in that same type of commitment with.

On an individual level, I cannot argue with you. The lack of a modern group of people like the Believers in Acts makes the case for what Faith is frustratingly trying to explain.

Finally, there is no comparable church that I know of today.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithYou can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Re: Jaywill first (Faith's points later,but not her ad hominems against unbelievers

There is other scripture that says we must work to take care of ourselves and our families, so it is simply not possible that we are charged with giving 100%. Ringo is as usual defending his own ridiculous misreading of the Bible.

The best model I've heard of was John Wesley's policy of giving away whatever was in excess of what he needed to live on. He calculated his needs, quite conservatively I'm sure, and gave away anything he received that was more than that.

People who have been asked to give all were especially chosen for some particular mission, such as a Hudson Taylor who became a missionary to China. During the years that led up to that he helped poor people in his area. In one case he had a coin left for his own meal and felt the Holy Spirit telling him to give it to the poor family instead. He did and it became a lesson to him in how the Lord provides for those who trust Him. But we are not all called to that degree of sellf-sacrifice. You have to be dedicated way beyond the norm. Taylor spent hours on his knees in prayer, and then spent the rest of his life in China.

Re: Was there a squashed attempt at a "socialistic" Christian government pre 50/70 A.D.?

Faith writes:A genuine believer is someone who is born again and lives for Christ.

So that would be anybody that believes what you believe?

It would be anybody who puts all trust in Christ for salvation which can vary from my own specific beliefs.

There is no doubt what Pascal meant and it is not what you interpreted it to mean. He thinks it very wise of God to inspire the Bible in such a way as to enlighten believers but mislead unbelievers.

Yes that's what he means. But the conclusion from that is that god can only communicate with those that already believe in him. What use is that?

If we don't believe we do not have the spiritual means for communicating with God. There are some basics, like you desire to know God, like you respect God's offer of salvation, like you are willing to repent and do things God's way. Those who have none of that should also have no ability to understand the Bible correctly.

His stated intention was to save the world, not just a lucky few.

His stated intention was that He wanted everyone to repent and believe but we know there are lots of people who won't do that. You for instance.

Re: Jaywill first (Faith's points later,but not her ad hominems against unbelievers

Phat writes:

Because we no longer have Apostles...people we can trust---to hand it over to.

They were handing their possessions over to God. Don't you trust God? You saw what happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they were untrustworthy. What do you think would happen to the trustees if they were untrustworthy?

Phat writes:

There is no comparable system today that is anywhere near as integral as the one described in Acts.

The trustworthiness of the system has nothing to do with whether or not you should obey God.

Phat writes:

What I am telling you and have told you before is that there is no group with trusted leaders with which I feel comfortable being in that same type of commitment with.

And I'm telling you that that copout doesn't fly.

Phat writes:

The lack of a modern group of people like the Believers in Acts makes the case for what Faith is frustratingly trying to explain.

No it doesn't. It's an excuse to hold back. And holding back makes you a goat.

And Faith is not trying to "explain" anything. She's denying what the Bible says. There's no "explanation" that excuses that.

Act 5:4-5 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

As I said, he heard the words about lying to God and died. No mention of holding back money as the cause of his death. It's about lying to God, period.

Yes, AGAIN, they were morally wrong to hold back part of the money but they were legally in the right to do so as the statement about it beig in their control shows. God punished them for lying to Him about it.